The Advice of the Conservative Bourgeoisie

Published:Proletary, No. 2, June 3 (May 21), 1905.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 8,

      pages457-460.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Isidor LaskerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

TheSecond Congress of the Zemstvo representatives was held in Moscow a few
weeks ago. Russian newspapers are not allowed to print a word about it. The
English newspapers report numerous details received from eyewitnesses who
attended the Congress and who telegraphed, not only its decisions, but the
substance of the speeches made by the representatives of the various
shadings. The decisions of the 132 Zemstvo representatives amount in their
essence to an acceptance of the constitutional programme published by Mr. Struve
and analysed by us inVperyod, No. 18 (“Political

			     Sophisms”).[1]This programme provides for a bicameral popular legislature and the retention of
the monarchy. The Upper House is to consist of deputies from the Zemstvos and
the municipal councils, the Lower is to be elected on the basis of universal,
direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot. Our legal newspapers, forced to
keep silent about the Congress, have begun to publish details of the programme,
which makes it all the more important now to analyse it.

Asregards the Congress, we shall probably have occasion more than once to
return to it. For the time being we shall recount, on the authority of the
English newspapers, a particularly interesting event at this Congress, namely,
the disagreement, or split, between the “liberal”, or opportunist or
Shipov, party and the “radical” party. The disagreement arose over
the question of universal suffrage, to which the former party is opposed. On
Sunday, May 7 (April 24), it transpired that 52 members of the Congress backed
Shipov and were ready to walk out if the Congress declared foruniversal suffrage. On Monday a score among them voted with the majority for
      universal suffrage. Thereupon a resolution on the convocation of a
      Constituent Assembly on the basis of universal suffrage was adopted
      unanimously, a considerable majority declaring for direct elections and
      for the non-admission (to the Constituent Assembly) of representatives of
      the municipal councils and Zemstvos. Thus,for the time being, the
    followers of Shipov have been defeated at the Congress of the Zemstvo
    representatives. The majority has come to the conclusion that the only way
    to preserve the monarchy and prevent revolution is to grant universal,
    direct, and equal suffrage by secret ballot, rendered innocuous through
    indirect and unequal elections to one of the two houses.

Theopinion of the English conservative bourgeoisie on this Congress and on this
decision is most instructive. “It is quite impossible,” writesThe
Times, “for foreigners to gauge the political importance of this
remarkable meeting until we learn from trustworthy authority what measure of
support it commands amongst the huge mass of the Russian people. It may mark the
beginning of a real constitutional reform; it may be the first stage on the road
to revolution; it may be a mere fire of straw which the bureaucracy have
tolerated because they know it will burn harmlessly out.”

Aremarkably true characterisation! Indeed, the further course of the Russian
revolution is far from being determined by an event like this
Congress. “The support of the huge mass of the people” is still a
moot question, not as regards the actual fact of the people’s support (which is
assured), but rather as regards the strength of this support. If the government
puts down the uprising, then the liberal Congress will indeed have been a fire
of straw. And the moderate European liberals, of course, advise the golden
mean: a moderate constitution which would stave off the revolution. The
government’s confusion, however, fills them with dismay and discontent. The ban
on publishing the decisions of the Congress puzzlesThe Times, since
the delegates, now dispersed to their home districts, have every means of
informing the entire Russian public of their decisions. “To have refused
to allow the Congress to meet, to have arrested its members when they did meet,
or to have used them as a screenfor a sham reform would all have been intelligible courses. But to let them meet
and disperse, and then to try and silence them is merely
inept.”

Thestupidity of the tsarist government, as proved by its confusion and
impotence (for confusion at a revolutionary moment is a sure sign of impotence),
fills European capital with grave concern (The Timesis a mouthpiece of
“the City”, the high financiers of the world’s richest city). This
confusion increases the probability of a real, victorious revolution sweeping
everything in its path, a revolution that strikes terror into the hearts of the
European bourgeoisie. The latter blames the autocracy for losing its head and
the liberals for making “immoderate” demands! Upon the question
(universal suffrage) “which the ... most experienced Legislatures in
Europe would hesitate to decide in the course of a prolonged session [fumesThe Times]—they seem to have practically reversed their
attitude in five short days and adopted extremist decisions. European capital
advises Russian capital to follow its example. We do not doubt that this advice
will be taken—but hardly before the autocracy has had its powercurtailed.The European bourgeoisie in its day fought against
absolutism still more “immoderately”, by still more revolutionary
methods than the Russian bourgeoisie does in its day. The
“obduracy” of the Russian autocracy and the immoderacy of Russian
liberalism are due, not to their inexperience, asThe Timesseems to
imply, but to factors beyond their control—the international situation,
foreign policy, and most of all to that heritage of Russian history which has
driven the autocracy to the wall and piled up under its dominance contradictions
and conflicts never known in Western Europe. The proverbial stability and
strength of Russian tsarism in the past necessarily condition the force of the
revolutionary assault upon it. This is most unpleasant to all gradualists and
opportunists; it terrifies even many Social-Democrats from the tail-ender camp,
but such is the fact.

TheTimesdeplores the defeat of Shipov. Why, only last November he was
the undisputed chief of the reform party and now... “so rapidly does
revolution devour its children Poor Shipov! To suffer defeat and be branded as
the evil genius of the revolution—could fate be more unjust? The“radicals” who voted Shipov down at the Congress of the Zemstvo
      representatives shockThe Times, which cries in horror that they
    adhere to the theoretical principles of the French Convention. The doctrine
    of equality, of equal rights for all citizens, of the sovereignty of the
    people, etc., “has been proved by many... experiments to be, perhaps,
    the most prolific of evil amongst all the brood of disastrous sophistries
    which Jean Jacques Rousseau bequeathed to mankind. It is the tap-root of
    Jacobinism, fatal by its mere presence to the growth of just and wholesome
    reforms.”

Theopportunists of liberalism touchingly embrace with the opportunists of
Social-Democracy in their partiality for employing the bogy of
“Jacobinism”. In an epoch of democratic revolution only hopeless
reactionaries or

hope lessphilistines can raise the bogy of Jacobinism.

[1]See pp. 425-32 of this volume.—Ed.